M/S NEO TECH ENGINEERING,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

condone the same after drawing support from the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 dated 23.03.2020 which had thereafter from time to time been modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order(s) dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021, 23.09.2021 and 10.01.2022. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the return

DOLPHIN PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

condoned the delay involved in present case. 10. At the threshold of the hearing, Ld. AR pressed following additional grounds: Additional Ground No. 1 dated 04.04.2024 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s 144 by Addl. CIT is invalid as he was not having valid jurisdiction over the assessee firm for making assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERSS CHHATTISGARH STATEELECTRICITY BOARD, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

viii). State of U.P. and others v. Harish Chandra and others, (1996) 9 SCC . 309 (ix). National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Giga Ram and others, (2002) 10 SCC . . 176. 22 DCIT, Circle-4(1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (x). State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and others (2005) 3 SCC 752 The Ld. D.R. heavily relied upon

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BIJAPUR,BIJAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, BEMETARA,BEMETARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MIN & ADMIN), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MIN & ADMIN), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MIN & ADMIN), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MIN & ADMIN), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MIN & ADMIN), JAGDALPUR,BASTAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay

DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DANTEWADA,DANTEWADA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

36 days (wrongly mentioned as 28 days), 117 days (wrongly mentioned as 272 days) and 157 days (wrongly mentioned as 351 days), respectively. (A) As regards the delay involved in filing of the appeals in ITA Nos. 64 to 69/RPR/2013, the Ld. Authorized Representatives (for short ‘AR’) for the respective assessee’s elaborating on the reasons leading to the delay